About your Search

20130420
20130420
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
's only possible on the -- look at the host of just raised the issue on tax bases. it's not a minor problem. if we have asked for a report and the outcome was -- companies which are -- on a global level, a tax burden which is high compared to companies not on a global level because the possibilities, the options to avoid taxation, are in this interconnected world, and at the end you need someone who pays for the budget. otherwise you will create major problems in europe. exist to discuss better market economy, is more successful combined with political freedom and democracy and rule of law, over the economy combined with the political system which is so complicated. i am convinced, more sustainable the basis of freedom, the rule of law, democracy, and might be a bit more complicated. more sustainable. perhaps we have to do this again and again. >> let me ask you quit a different question and that is, u.s. and the european union have announced they're going to negotiate a transatlantic investment and trade pact, partnership, and several have suggested that the united states and europ
sam but the ways in which they do this are very different. if you just apply a flat tax on u.s. imports that's one way to push our trade back into balance that doesn't involve risks of crony capitalism, that doesn't involve risks to the government micromanaging the economy. if you say okay which is going to have a flat tariff of 10% or 20% or 30% whatever it takes to get to a zero trade deficit that doesn't introduce a lot of corruption or a lot of dangers bad policymaking because it's a very simple policy. it's just determined by an arithmetical formula and there's no opportunity for anybody to play games. one of the good things about it if you have a flat tariff, is if you had a 30% tariff on imported goods that's not enough to relocate the production of t-shirts that united states because cost is too great. it's great to relocate things like silicon wafer fabrication so would tend to relocate back to the u.s. high value capital-intensive skill intensive industries which is of course what we want to do. those are the industries that are high-quality -- high-quality into she
it iwith higher taxes elsewhere, which will shed jobs. john: each green job cost $175,000 each per job? >> if you really want jobs, you can make an argument in a crisis toubsidize jobs in the short run. you can get many more jobs if you focused on infrastructe or hospitals or other things where you would create a lot of great benefits and more jobs. john: you dispute this using wind power tcreate the same amount as nuclear plants are you in need to cover the state of rhode island. >> wind turbines are much less efficient partly because they take up a lot of space. john: and they're more efficient than the solar. >> they only work aboutne fourth of the time. you have to build a lot of backup power. the fuel is free, so potentially we couldet to a stuation where we are beneficial. but we are not there yet. john: but we are spending like we are. >> a lot of people, global warming, we have to do something now. actually global warng, we have to find smart ways to make sure we can get everybody on board, not just rich, but we can find technology that will be so cheap the chinese and the indi
of the payroll tax cut, $80 per month as significant for most families. ghost was groceries, rent, gasoline. grant of lawful status further increases the influx of illegal immigrants. further forcing out low skilled the wage the pressing and employment levels of those americans. leadsition to that, that to more americans depending on the government. that the for the federal government, due deliberation be given to the effect of that grant on the wage and employment levels of low skilled americans because the evidence before the commission is that grant of said status is not without substantial cost to the american worker. thank you. >> as of all witnesses, a full statement will remain part of the record. the president of the american action forum. good to have the year. please go ahead. >> thank you chairman. it is a privilege to be here today i submitted a written statement for the record. let me briefly make three points. the immigration reform bill before you as many aspects. there are important security considerations, economic impact, legal issues but at its core, immigration reform re
't been up front with my taxes. this would prevent d.h.s. from say sharing that information with the internal revenue service? guest: the private companies in sharing information, the biggest concern is -- individuals are concerned that their private information within the cyber networks or systems would be held by private companies but then provided to the government, that this private information would not be stripped by the companies first. in the president's executive order, the onus would be on the privacy advocates. companiesthe private to strip any private information that might be caught up within the context of cyber threat information. first one has to understand the definition of cyber threat. it is unlikely but not impossible that your private tax information, your e-mail content would be part of that information that is a cyber threat information that would be given to the government. is there a possibility that it would be lumped in with that? yes. so whose responsibility is it to minimize and get rid of your private information? the bill does not allow the gov
of it comes from the drug trade. some probably 35 or 40%. some money comes from illicit taxes from afghan people and some money comes from external support from outside the region. >> when you look at the places that they go in pakistan, the frontier areas, double pakistan, -- do you believe pakistan, number one, has control over those areas and number two, can control over those areas? >> senator, pakistan does not have control over those areas right now. they have had over 15,000 killed and wounded in operations in that area over the past decade. they've had hundreds killed and wounded in the past several weeks as they've tried to gain control in the khyber area. i think that's a clear indication they cannot control the border area and the taliban that are operating freely inside of that border area. >> what do you see as a rule for the taliban, if any, in the future afghan government as we transition out, as discussions are taking place. how do you envision that future afghan government? obviously there are elections coming up but how are we looking at the transition for the afghan gov
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)